V. I. Lenin

Interview With Arthur Ransome

Manchester GuardianCorrespondent[1]

WrittenBetween October 27 and November 5, 1922First Published:Version 1: Published inThe Manchester GuardianNo. 23797, November 22, 1922; First published in Russian in 1930; Translated from the manuscript; Version 2:PravdaNo. 17, January 21, 1926; Published according to a typewritten copy with corrections and additions by LeninSource:Lenin’sCollected Works, 2nd English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965,Volume 33, pages 400-409Translated:David Skvirsky and George HannaTranscription\HTML Markup:David Walters&R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of theGNU Free Documentation License

First Version

1.Question.I find considerable economic activity;
    everybody is buying and selling, and evidently, a new trading class is
    arising. My question is—how is it that the Nepman is not, and
    shows no signs of aspiring to become, a political force?

Answer.Your first question reminded me of a conversation I had
      long, long ago, in London. It was on a Saturday night. I was taking a
      stroll with a friend; that was some twenty years ago.[2]The streets were
      thronged. Traders were lined all along the curbs, and their stalls were
      lit up by small metal tubes, filled with naphtha, or something of that
      sort. The lights were very pretty. The traffic in the streets was really
      extraordinary. Everybody was buying or selling.

In Russia at that time there was a trend that we called Economism. By
    this rather slangy term we meant the childish vulgarisation of Marx’s
    views on historical materialism. My friend was an Economist, and he at once
    began to show off his knowledge. This extraordinary economic activity, he
    argued, should create a desire for political power. I laughed at this
    interpretation of Marx. The abundance of small traders and their extremely
    lively activities, I said, do not prove in the least that this class is a
    great economic force, from which one could infer a desire for
    “political power”. London, probably, became the world’s
    commercial centre, both economic and political, in a somewhat more
    complicated way than my friend imagined, and the London street traders,
    their remarkable activity notwithstanding, were rather far from being a
    “political” force, and even from the desire to become one.

I am afraid that your question as to why our Nepmen (i.e., street
    traders? petty hucksters?) “show no signs of aspiring to become a
    political force” will raise a smile here; and our answer will
    be—for the very same reason that the Saturday night crowd buying and
    selling in the streets of London did not, in Britain, “show signs of
    aspiring to become a political force”.

2.Question.I get the impression that in Russia, today,
    buying and selling and barter are highly profitable, whereas production is
    possible only in very rare cases. Buying and selling and barter are in the
    hands of the Nepmen. In most cases profitable production is conducted on a
    small scale, and is in the hands of private
    individuals.Unprofitableproduction is in the hands of the
    state. My question is—does this not presage a continuous increase
    in the economic power of the Nepmen and a continuous diminution of the power
    of the state?

Answer.I am afraid that you formulate your second question
    also from an almost Economist angle in the sense indicated above. It was
    Bastiat, I think, who seriously held the opinion that “the ancient
    Greeks and Romans lived by plunder”. The “economic”
    question as to where the loot obtained by the people who lived by plunder
    came from did not trouble him very much.

You “get the impression that in Russia, today, buying and selling
    and barter are highly profitable, whereas production is possible only in
    very rare cases”.

I was very surprised to read such a conclusion drawn from observation of
    what goes on in the streets of Moscow. I thought to myself—what about
    the millions and millions of Russian peasants? The fact that they sow crops
    is not a rare, or very rare case, but the commonest case in Russia, is it
    not? Is it not “even” commoner than the “buying and
    selling” of the Nepmen? And, probably, peasant production is not only
    “possible” in Russia, but extremely “profitable", is it
    not? If it were not so, how could our peasants have obtained the means to
    pay the tax in kind, amounting to hundreds of millions of poods of grain,
    which they have already delivered to the government so very quickly and
    easily? How is one to explain the universal acceleration of building
    activity observed by everybody, both in town and country, throughout
    boundless Russia?

Does not the questioner take for “highly profitable selling and
    barter” the petty trade in which a small trader sometimes makes
    millions and millions of profits in depreciated Russian currency, when on
    the free market a million rubles is worth less than a ruble was before? It
    is scarcely possible to slip into such an error, for our government is
    now—has been for the last few months already—striking out the
    “superfluous” noughts of our paper currency.[3]One day the figure
    is a million million; four noughts are struck out and it becomes a hundred
    million. The state does not become richer as a result of this operation, but
    it is very strange to assume that it “becomes weaker", for this
    operation is an obvious step towards stabilising the currency, and the
    Nepmen are beginning to see that the ruble is becoming stabilised; this was
    to be seen in the summer, for example. The Nepmen are beginning to
    understand that the “striking out” of noughts will continue, and
    I doubt whether their “aspiration to become a political force”
    will hinder it.

To return to the question of production. In this country the land
    belongs to the state. The small peasants who occupy the land are paying the
    tax splendidly. Industrial production—in so-called light
    industry—is obviously reviving; and this production is partly in the
    hands of the state and managed by its employees, and partly in the hands of
    lessees.

Thus, there are no grounds for anticipating “a continuous
    diminution of the power of the state”.

You must draw a distinction not between production and trade, but
    between production in light industry and that in heavy industry. The latter
    is really unprofitable, and this is actually creating serious difficulties
    for the country. Of this, more below.

3.Question.It is being hinted that an attempt is to be made
    (by means of taxation) to compel the Nepmen to subsidise industry. My
    question is—will not this merely result in a rise in prices and
    increased profits for the Nepmen,which will indirectly create the
    necessity of raising wages—thus causing a return to the former
    situation?

Answer.The government has at its command hundreds of millions
      of poods of grain. That being the case, it is wrong to anticipate that
      taxes will “merely” result in a rise in prices. The
      taxes will also provide us with revenues, obtained from the Nepmen and
      manufacturers, which will be used for industry, particularly heavy
      industry.

4.Question.Judging by usual capitalist standards, the
    economic situation should be worse. Judging by communist standards, the
    situation should also be worse (decline of heavy industry). And yet,
    everybody I meet admits that his conditions are better than they were a year
    ago. Evidently, something is taking place that neither capitalist nor
    communist ideology allows for. Both presuppose progress. But what if,
    instead of progressing, we are receding? My question is—is it not
    possible that we are not marching forward to new prosperity,but
    are reverting to the old conditions?Is it not possible that Russia is
    going back to the period of agricultural production approximately
    commensurate with her needs, and to a brisk home trade only slightly
    affected by foreign imports? Is not such a period conceivable under the
    proletarian dictatorship as it was formerly under the feudal dictatorship?

Answer.Let us first “judge” by “usual
    capitalist standards”. Throughout the summer our ruble remained
    stable. This is an obvious sign of improvement. Furthermore, the revival of
    peasant production and of light industry is beyond doubt. This, too, is an
    improvement. Lastly, the State Bank has obtained a net revenue of no less
    than 20,000,000 gold rubles (this is at the lowest estimate; actually, it
    obtained a larger sum). A small sum, but the improvement is beyond doubt. A
    small sum, but it undoubtedly marks the beginning of an increase in the
    funds available for heavy industry.

To proceed. Let us now judge by communist standards. All the three
    circumstances enumerated above are assets also from the communist viewpoint,
    for in this country political power is in the hands of the workers. Thesteptowards the stabilisation of the ruble, the revival of peasant
    production and light industry and thefirstprofits obtained by the
    State Bank (i.e., the state) are all assets from the communist viewpointtoo.

How is it that although capitalism is the antithesis of communism,
    certain circumstances areassetsfromthe two opposite
    viewpoints?It is because one possible way to proceed to communism is
    through state capitalism, provided the state is controlled by the working
    class. This is exactly the position in the “present case”.

The decline of heavy industry is a loss to us. The first profits
    obtained by the State Bank and the People’s Commissariat of Foreign
    Trade mark the beginning of an improvement in this field, too. The
    difficulties here are enormous; but the situation is by no means
    hopeless.

Let us proceed further. Is it possible that we are receding to something
    in the nature of a “feudal dictatorship"? It is utterly impossible,
    for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to
    time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a
    path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest
    stage of socialism), and certainly not back to feudalism.

Foreign trade is growing; the ruble is becoming more stable, although
    the progress is not altogether without interruptions; there is an obvious
    revival of industry in Petrograd and Moscow; a small, a very small beginning
    has been made in accumulating state funds for the purpose of assisting heavy
    industry, and so on, and so forth. All this shows that Russia is not
    receding, but advancing, although, I repeat, very slowly, and not without
    interruption.

5.Question.Or are we witnessing a deplorable squandering of
    capital that should be utilised in production?

Answer.This question has already been answered in the
      foregoing.

6.Question.In addition to these questionsThe Manchester
	Guardianwould be interested to obtain direct from you a refutation
      of the rumours now freely circulating in Moscow that the ration system
      will be reintroduced this winter and that all Nepman stocks are to be
      requisitioned.

Answer.I readily affirm that the rumours to the effect that
    we intend to revert to the ration system or that we intend to
    “requisition all Nepman stocks” are groundless.

They are fairy-tales, nothing more. We are not contemplating anything of
    the sort.

Nothing of the sort is conceivable in present-day Russia. These rumours
    are being maliciously circulated by people who are very angry with us, but
    are not very clever.

7.Question.Lastly, am I right in assuming that the agreement
    with Urquhart has not been finally rejected, but has only been shelved until
    normal, friendly relations have been established with the British
    Government?

Answer.You are absolutely right about Urquhart. I shall repeat
      what I recently told Farbman.[SeeInterview Given
      to Michael Farbman,ObserverandManchester GuardianCorrespondent] We have not finally rejected the proposal for a
      concession to Urquhart. We have rejected it only for the political reasons
      we have publicly announced. In our press we have started a discussion of
      all theprosandcons.And we hope that after this
      discussion we shall arrive at a definite opinion on both the political and
      economic aspects.

November 5, 1922

Second Version (Unfinished)

In reply to your questions:

1.  I think that the “Nepman", i.e., the representative of the
    trading system developing under the “New Economic Policy", would like
    to become a political force, but shows no signs of this, or shows them in
    such a way as to conceal his aspirations. He is compelled to conceal his
    aspirations, for otherwise he would run the risk of meeting with the stern
    opposition of our state authorities, or perhaps even worse than opposition,
    i.e., downright hostility.

I am of the opinion that with the concentration of the bulk of the means
    of production in the hands of our state what the petty bourgeoisie actually
    needs, economically is freedom to buy and sell consumer goods. Our laws
    grant the petty bourgeoisie this freedom.

The term “Nepman” that you use leads to some
    misunderstanding. This word is made up of the abbreviation NEP, which stands
    for “New Economic Policy", and the word “man”. Together it
    means “a man, or representative, of this New Economic
    Policy”. This term first arose as a journalese nickname for the small
    huckster, or individual who took advantage of the free market for all sorts
    of abuses.

Outwardly, what strikes the eye most in the New Economic Policy is that
    people like the “Nepmen", that is, people of all sorts who “buy
    and sell", as you say, come to the fore.

But the actual economic activities of the actual majority of the
    population by no means consist in this. For example, it is sufficient to
    point to the activities of the vast masses of the peasantry who, precisely
    at the present time, are displaying tremendous energy and self-sacrifice in
    restoring their tillage, their agricultural implements, their houses, farm
    buildings, etc. On the other hand, at this very moment the industrial
    workers are displaying equal energy in improving their tools, in replacing
    worn out tools by new ones, in restoring wrecked, dilapidated or damaged
    buildings, etc.

The “Nepmen", if we are to employ this term, which belongs rather
    to the realm of journalese than to the realm of serious political economy,
    make more noise than their economic power warrants. I am therefore afraid
    that anybody who in a vulgarised way applied to our “Nepmen” the
    proposition of historical materialism that economic power must be followed
    by political power, is in danger of falling into serious error, and even of
    becoming the victim of a series of ridiculous misunderstandings.

The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this—firstly, the
    proletarian statehas given small producers freedom to trade; and
    secondly, in respect of themeans of production in large-scale
    industry,the proletarian state is applying a number of the
    principles of what in capitalist economics is called “state capitalism”.

I think that the “Nepmen” who draw from this the conclusion
    that they should aspire to become a political force are in danger not only
    of falling into error, but also of becoming a butt for newspaper quips about
    their vulgar conception of Marxism.

2.  It seems to me that your impression that in Russia today buying and
    selling are highly profitable, “whereas production is possible only in
    very rare cases” is likely to call forth well-deserved ridicule over
    Mister Nepman’s political economy.

If I am not mistaken, the overwhelming majority of the population of
    Russia are small peasants, who have now thrown themselves into production
    with extraordinary zeal, and have achieved (partly due to the assistance the
    government has given them by way of seed, etc.) enormous, almost incredible
    success, particularly if we bear in mind the unprecedented devastation
    caused by the Civil War, the famine, and so forth. The small peasants have
    been so successful that they delivered the state tax amounting to hundreds
    of millions of poods of grain with extraordinary ease, and almost without
    any coercion.

I therefore think that it would be more true to say that the
    overwhelming majority of the population, whose production is conducted on a
    very small scale and is concentrated in private hands, obtains very large
    profits. This applies to peasant farming as a whole. The same, or slightly
    smaller, profits are obtained from industrial production—part of which
    is in private hands and part in the hands of lessees from the state or state
    factories producing consumer goods for the rural population.

The only really unprofitable production in the hands of the state is
    that part which, to employ the scientific terminology of political economy,
    should be called the production of means of production (ores, metals, etc.),
    or the production of fixed capital. Under capitalist economy the renewal of
    this form of capital usually requires government loans, which at one stroke
    provide extremely large sums (hundreds of millions of rubles, or even
    dollars) for the reorganisation of a number of enterprises capable of
    restoring damaged means of production.

In our case, the restoration of the damaged means of production promises
    no profit whatever for a long time to come, and is “unprofitable", as
    you express it. For a long time we shall have to resort to revenues obtained
    from concessions, or state subsidies, for the purpose of restoring our fixed
    capital.

Such is the actual economic situation at present. As you see, my view of
    this situation is quite different from yours. I am afraid that your opinion
    that in this country there is a “continuous increase in the economic
    power of the Nepmen” and a “continuous diminution of the power
    of the state” would probably have prompted Marx to make some caustic
    remarks about vulgar political economy.

I still stick to my old idea that after Marx you can drag in non-Marxian
    political economy only for the purpose of fooling philistines, even if they
    are “highly civilised” philistines.

I am rounding off on the question of “political power”. The
    basis of political power in Russia is the workers and peasants. In all
    capitalist countries the peasants are robbed by the landowners and
    capitalists. As the peasants become more politically educated they
    understand this better. That is why the bulk of the population will not
    follow the lead of the “buying and selling” Nepmen.

3.  Will not the tax on the “Nepmen” merely result in
    increased wages and prices, instead of providing funds for production?

No, because prices will be based on grain. A certain part of this grain
    is in the hands of the state, collected in the form of a tax. The Nepmen
    cannot directly influence prices because they are not producers. The foreign
    trade monopoly, I must say in passing, will help us to keep the Nepmen in
    hand, for, without consulting them, prices will be determined by the price
    of production abroad plus the extra charge imposed by the state for the
    purpose of subsidising production.

I am afraid that you sometimes imagine that the Nepmen are forcing up
      prices although the rise in prices is actually due to the depreciation of
      our paper currency, caused by increased issues. That would be a
      mistake.

[1]Arthur
    Ransome,Manchester Guardiancorrespondent, came to Soviet Russia
    in October 1922 with the express purpose of interviewing Lenin. On October
    26 he was asked to write down the questions that he wanted answered. On the
    next day Ransome wrote seven questions which he sent to Lenin.

Lenin received Ransome in the evening of November
    3. They spoke of the parliamentary elections in Britain and the fascist coup
    in Italy, but mostly the talk was around the questions submitted by
    Ransome. Lenin said that he had not yet answered all the questions, but
    promised to do so before Ransome left the country. On Sunday, November 5,
    Lenin wrote his answers to all of Ransome’s seven questions.

[2]Lenin and
    his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya lived in London from April 1902 to April
    1903. The friend that Lenin mentions is K. M. Takhtarev, a Social-Democrat,
    member of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the
    Working Class and one of the leaders of Economism.

TheEconomistswere representatives of an
    opportunist trend in the Russian Social-Democratic movement of the close of
    the19th and beginning of the 20th century. The Economists incorrectly
    assessed the relation between economics and politics and belittled the role
    of the political revolutionary struggle. They said that the working class
    should confine itself to an economic struggle for higher wages, better
    working conditions and so forth, maintaining that the political struggle was
    a matter for the liberal bourgeoisie. They rejected the idea that the party
    of the working class plays the leading role, that socialist political
    consciousness must be brought into the working-class movement. They thereby
    cleared the road for bourgeois ideology. Economism held out the threat of
    steering the proletariat away from the road of revolution and making it
    politically dependent on the bourgeoisie. This trend was completely routed
    ideologically by Lenin.

[3]On October
    24, 1922, the Council of People’s Commissars passed a decision to put
    into circulation banknotes dated 1923. Under the new decision, signed by
    Lenin, one 1923 ruble was equal to a million rubles of the banknotes that
    had been removed from circulation or one hundred 1922 rubles.